Madras High Court
The Management Of Southern Railways vs The Presiding Officer on 2 September, 2024
Author: M.S.Ramesh
Bench: M.S. Ramesh
W.A.No.2411 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.09.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
W.A.No.2411 of 2024
and C.M.P.No.17105 of 2024
The Management of Southern Railways,
Rep. by its Dy. Chief Personnel Officer,
Engineering, Head Quarters Office,
Personnel Branch, Chennai – 600 003. ...Appellant
Vs.
1.The Presiding Officer,
The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai.
2.A.Nandakumar ...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, to set
aside the order dated 19.09.2023 in W.P.No.6401 of 2013.
For Appellant : Mr.Prasad Vijayakumar
Standing Counsel
For R1 : Labour Court
For R2 : Mr.K.Venkataramani, Sr. Counsel
for Mr.S.Srinivasan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 6
W.A.No.2411 of 2024
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.)
When the 2nd respondent herein was terminated from service with
effect from 04.12.1991, the order of punishment was set aside by the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), through its award dated
13.03.1995 passed in I.D.No.8 of 1994, directing the Management to
reinstate him into service, together with continuity of service, backwages
and all other attendant benefits. The challenge to the award before this
Court by the Management in W.P.No.5040 of 1999 was also dismissed on
15.10.2008. Since no further Intra-Court Appeal was preferred against
the same, the award of the Tribunal had become final.
2. In this background, the 2nd respondent herein had filed a Claim
Petition in C.P.No.1 of 2012 under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), claiming backwages for
the period from May, 1997 to March, 2011. Through an order dated
06.12.2012, the Tribunal had computed the backwages payable to the 2nd
respondent at Rs.12,79,212/-, which order came to be challenged by the
Management before this Court in W.P.No.6401 of 2013. The learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
single Judge had dismissed the Writ Petition on 19.09.2023, by
disagreeing with the claim of the Management that the 2nd respondent
was gainfully employed as a casual worker. By placing reliance on the
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Capt.M.Paul Anthony
Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. reported in (1999)3 SCC 679, it was held
that there was no infirmity or illegality in the order of the Tribunal. This
order of dismissal is assailed in the present Intra-Court Appeal.
3. The learned standing counsel appearing for the Management
submitted that the learned single Judge had failed to consider that the 2 nd
respondent had worked only for 74 days and had not completed 240 days
in a calendar year and therefore cannot be treated as a workman. He
further submitted that since the claim amount in the proceedings under
Section 33(C)(2) of the Act was not earlier adjudicated, the Tribunal had
exceeded its jurisdiction by adjudicating such a claim.
4. Per contra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the
workman would submit that since the Claim Petition itself was based on
the award of the Tribunal granting monetary benefits, there was no
infirmity in the computation undertaken by the Tribunal. He further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
submitted that the workman was terminated from service way back in the
year 1991 and though more than 23 years have lapsed, he is yet to
receive the monetary benefits of his entitlement.
5. It is rather unfortunate that though the punishment of
termination from service imposed by the Management was set aside by
the Tribunal way back in the year 1995, the Management had been
somehow or the other, depriving the 2nd respondent from receiving his
rightful claims. Before the learned single Judge, when the order passed
under Section 33(C)(2) of the Act was challenged, the Management
appears to have raised a ground claiming that the 2nd respondent was
gainfully employed by acting as a casual daily wage Driver for several
spells during the claim period and therefore was not entitled for the claim
made before the Tribunal.
6. Though the learned single Judge had substantiated that such
gainful employment during short spells may not dis-entitle him to make a
claim, in view of the decision in Capt.M.Paul Anthony's (supra), we are
constrained to remark that even such a justification was not required to
be made, since it is obvious that such a ground of gainful employment is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
misconceived. If at all the Management was of the view that the 2nd
respondent was not entitled for the monetary benefits of backwages, the
only option that would be available to them is to prefer an appeal against
the order passed in W.P.No.5040 of 1999, in which the award of the
Tribunal made in I.D.No.8 of 1994 was challenged. Having failed to do
so, it is not now open to the Management to canvass the ground that
ought to have been raised before the Writ Court.
7. In the backdrop of these findings, we do not find any illegality
or infirmity in the order of the learned single Judge. Accordingly, the
Writ Appeal stands dismissed. In view of the dismissal of the Writ
Appeal, the Management shall forthwith comply with the directions of
the order passed in W.P.No.6401 of 2013, dated 19.09.2023, within a
period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
[M.S.R., J] [C.K., J]
02.09.2024
Index:Yes/No
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
hvk
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
hvk
To
The Presiding Officer,
The Central Government Industrial
Tribunal cum Labour Court, Chennai.
02.09.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
